Camera ability discussion

[Jack Walker]

What will get you to walk out of a movie theater faster or change the TV channel quicker: bad picture or bad sound?

(And this looks like a good post to retire on, if I want to go out number 1.)

[Alex Humphrey]

Originally Posted by Jack Walker

What will get you to walk out of a movie theater faster or change the TV channel quicker: bad picture or bad sound?

(And this looks like a good post to retire on, if I want to go out number 1.)

Well I vote for worst things that make me walk out of a movie are

1. Bad script, then

2. bad acting.

A good actor can carry a bad script for a while, but then it wears off in 15 minutes. Good audio and visual, but bad actors and no script? Sounds like Star Wars Episode 1, 2 and 3. Never made it through Eps 1 and 2, and couldn't wait for the kid to nearly die and turn into Vader in episode 3.

[William Hohauser]

Originally Posted by Jack Walker

What will get you to walk out of a movie theater faster or change the TV channel quicker: bad picture or bad sound?

Bad sound especially if there's talking. Bad picture is subjective to what is on the screen. If you can't hear it properly and it's not a silent film (and when is it these days?), it's sunk.

[Giuseppe Pugliese]

I say bad visual is first, If the film is shot horribly, it will completely distract you away from what could be an amazing script with amazing actors... I have seen some BAD "cinematography" in some films, that were completely a negative point throughout the movie. Completely distracting and utterly straining to watch and enjoy the actual movie and storyline.

Cinematography should be unintrusive and let you fall into the story, if you cant let the audience fall into it, you did a bad job.

[Seun Osewa]

You can tolerate bad visuals more easily than bad sound. Lots of people enjoy fuzzy barely colored TV stations but they have to hear what the performers are saying.

[Terry Lee]

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

"Quality" means different things to different people. In my opinion (and my definition of "quality") it would be impossible to get the same "quality" out of your HD200 that you would on a Panavision Genesis, even with the most careful lighting in the most controlled environment. Does this mean that Apocalypto couldn't have been shot on the HD200? No, of course not. Any film can be shot on any camera with various results. In fact, in the hands of the right DP you could probably approximate most aspects of the look of that film on the HD200 with the right accessories and careful execution (except of course for the raw resolution.)
You should tell us exactly which qualitative aspects (depth of field, lens flares, sharpness, grain, motion blur, highlight handling, colour, etc) of Apocalypto you liked and we can suggest ways to attempt to achieve similar results with the HD200.

Tim, great idea...

What was attractive about this film was the sharpenss of the jungle and the actors while in motion. This film, in some parts, is shot under the jungle canopy. The hunting scene in the begining is perfect. The village scenes, of all the people "lit" by torches and camp fires was great. The night scene, where one of the elders is telling a story is also something I will have to take into consideration as I will encorporate low lit scenes as well.

Some, of my scenes will be shot in low light. I am going to try to encorporate alot of weather into this film. Dark black skies about to reign down on the village, wend blown trees, lightening..etc.

I am also going to be filming in doors which will be lit by a fire during the night and sun light eluminating the inside during the day.

Below are some photos from Apocalypto that highlight SOME of the scenes that I found to be similar to what I am looking for.

For some reason, two of them went into thumbnails and the others didn't..

[Jan Van der Heyden]

Originally Posted by Jack Walker

What will get you to walk out of a movie theater faster or change the TV channel quicker: bad picture or bad sound?

(And this looks like a good post to retire on, if I want to go out number 1.)

I think we all look at things differently because we have these technical backgrounds and knowledge of lighting, lenses, framerates,...

I remember watching the DVD's of The L-Word with my wife, she thought it was a great show because the characters were so real. I thought it was terrible as they seemed to have filmed without a DP and without a working diaphragm....

Maybe we are in too deep to be able to see films and movies the way "non-film-making-people" do ?

just my 2 cents

PS : bad sound makes me want to scream at the screen "turn it up!", bad picture makes want to scream "get Tim Dashwood's DVD!" (just kidding...but Tim's DVD is excellent !)

[Jemore Santos]

I remember Dean Semler ASC, ACS talking about his first, digital workflow, this was the Genesis on that film (he is actually pictured in the first pic with Mel Gibson). You're question is that, if you compared the Genesis and the HD200 side by side will you get an identical image?

If you want to find out what the genesis is capable of please look up the panavision website. Just think the Lens Technicians at Woodland hills have created a beautiful piece of glass, with little to no barrel shifting and aberation, and along with the 4-1 and the gigantic 3-1, this 11-1 (24-270mm) lens is arguably the best lens in the world. along with a super 35 chip and a HDCAM-SR workflow, it eats up anything a HD200u can do. That's in terms of technical quality, if you are talking about content, thats another story.

[Terry Lee]

Originally Posted by Jan Van der Heyden

I think we all look at things differently because we have these technical backgrounds and knowledge of lighting, lenses, framerates,...

I remember watching the DVD's of The L-Word with my wife, she thought it was a great show because the characters were so real. I thought it was terrible as they seemed to have filmed without a DP and without a working diaphragm....

Maybe we are in too deep to be able to see films and movies the way "non-film-making-people" do ?

Thats a really good point. Not that I have any knowledge close to comparison to you guys, but ever since I took a film class and started studying this stuff, I can never watch a movie the same again. I imagine it is even more difficult for people who have 20 years experience in the production industry.

[Liam Hall]

Originally Posted by Terry Lee

What was attractive about this film was the sharpenss of the jungle and the actors while in motion.

If you want your motion crisp. shoot with a high shutter speed.

Originally Posted by Terry Lee

Some, of my scenes will be shot in low light. I am going to try to encorporate alot of weather into this film. Dark black skies about to reign down on the village, wend blown trees, lightening..etc.

I hope you've got a serious lighting truck and plenty of help, that's an ambitious range of set-ups. How are you planning on recreating the lightning? Do you have a lightning machine or are you going to do that in post?

Originally Posted by Terry Lee

Below are some photos from Apocalypto that highlight SOME of the scenes that I found to be similar to what I am looking for.

For some reason, two of them went into thumbnails and the others didn't..

Post jpegs, then they'll work.

[Terry Lee]

Originally Posted by Liam Hall

If you want your motion crisp. shoot with a high shutter speed.

What would you suggest with the HD200?

I hope you've got a serious lighting truck and plenty of help, that's an ambitious range of set-ups. How are you planning on recreating the lightning? Do you have a lightning machine or are you going to do that in post?

Well I'm hoping to catch a storm to be honest...
For some of the shots I want a wide shot with the sky darkening over the village while everyone prepares for the storm. As the wind picks up, they begin to realize that this is more than a simple rain storm, but a tornado. This I know will take a good Visual FX person and I may have to turn some of the shots into a Visual FX studio (How much am I looking at there...?).